Patrick Fifelski (DP) & Nikita Mungarwadi (Dir) on location |
GREAT ART FROM BAD PEOPLE
What is it about the arts that can manipulate human
emotions, sending the witness into a sea of startling tears or a spiral of
interminable laughter? What is it about art that inspires us, guides us, and
acculturates us? Most hold true to the notion that the purpose of art is to
better us and some experts claim art can “raise our moral levels”[1].
We respect the irony of art, the illusion meant to distract our attention from
the real world, yet offers universal principles that can be applied to reality.
We fasten ourselves so deep into art’s mirage we convince ourselves that the artists
must embody and exude some kind of pure goodness. And yet contradictions are
ever present. In an interview for the New York Times, Kanye West pronounced,
“Great art comes from great artists.” But if we consider that Kanye West is the
epitome of narcissism and controversy, it begs the question: Can great art come
from bad people?
There’s no doubt that West’s brimming ego depletes his
character. At the 2004 American Music Awards, West ranted to the press after
country music singer Gretchen Wilson won the Best New Artist Award over him. In
an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, West even dubbed himself a “creative genius.” In
addition to his ego, Kanye West consistently finds himself in the center of
controversy, from blatantly accusing President George W. Bush on public
television of being a racist, to sporting a Confederate flag on his sleeve, to
humiliating Taylor Swift at the Video Music Awards. It was reasonable for President Barack Obama
to declare Kanye West a “jackass.” But when we consider all the musician’s
flaws, we cannot stray from the fact that West’s music manifests considerable talent
worthy of merit. With 21 Grammy awards and five platinum solo studio albums, West
is immersed in accomplishment, even if his character is far from it.
West has certainly not been the only artist to contradict
his art with his character. If we take a look at the 19th century German
composer, Richard Wagner, we find his opera compositions to be notably rich in
their textures, harmonies, and orchestration. His concept of Gesamtkunstwerk (“total
work of art”)[2]
revolutionized opera and continued to influence many art forms throughout the
20th century. Apart from distinguishing himself as a powerful
composer, Wagner didn’t shy from publicly expressing his obsessive anti-Semitic
views. Hitler deeply admired Wagner’s work and exercised his music in Nazi
propaganda – Wagner’s music eventually becoming a symbol of fascism.
The obvious answer is, yes, bad people, or people we
consider to have socially reprehensible qualities, are undoubtedly capable of creating
critically acclaimed art. But can we separate the man from the music, the art
from the artist, and still appreciate the art by itself? Daniel Bareboim, a Jewish
conductor who admires Wagner’s music, argues that while Wagner was a raging
anti-Semite, he did not compose a single note that was anti-Semitic.[3]
It can be argued that the artist and the art are two separate entities, and
should be evaluated individually. The artist can be condemned from an ethical
viewpoint while the art can only be judged from an aesthetic angle. Sure, Orson
Scott Card does not reveal his homophobia in Enders Game[4],
and Dickens continued to write about healing families long after discarding his
wife[5],
but some art cannot truly be fully appreciated without examining the life of
the creator. A notable example is Picasso, who fueled his creative output from
his countless romantic relationships of which two killed themselves and another
two went mad.[6]
The inquisition between great art and ethics becomes even
puzzling when we consider that great art can simultaneously glorify moral
injustice. D.W. Griffith’s film Birth of
A Nation, is known to have revolutionized the commercial film industry with
its innovative film techniques, while at the same time presenting the Ku Klux
Klan as a heroic force.
Art’s purpose goes beyond mere entertainment or bettering
the spectator. Art represents the human condition with all its complexities and
contradictions. We make art to be human, we witness art to feel human, and we
study art to understand humanity. Humans are complex characters, and great art
is an extension of that complexity. Art can be analyzed exclusively from the
artist, but cannot always be fully appreciated without acknowledging the
artist. At the same time, great art does not always constitute morally apt
ideals. Art is complex; Humans are complex. Art is ironic; Humans are ironic.
Like both good and bad humans, both good and bad art is irreducibly complex,
intricate, and embodies the contradictory creations of ingenuity.
[1]
Williams, Stan. The Moral Premise.
Studio City: Michael Wiese Productions, 2006. 19. Print.
[2]
Barenboim, Daniel. "Wagner and The
Jews." The New York Review of Books 60.11 (2013): 1+. Web. 1 Dec.
2013.
[3]
Barenboim, Daniel. "Wagner and The
Jews." The New York Review of Books 60.11 (2013): 1+. Web. 1 Dec.
2013.
[4]
Lorge, Lauren. "The conundrum of
good art created by bad people." The Collegian . Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
[5]
Schulman, Sam. "Good Writers. Bad
Men. Does It Matter?" In Character, A Journal of Everyday Virtues
(2010). Web. 1 Dec. 2013.
[6]
McGrath, Charles. "Good Art, Bad
People." The New York Times June 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment